2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
I don't look at the trip computer consumption (it scares me sometimes)... I
calculate L per 100Kms when I fill up.
I tend to look at the DTE when I drive.
"Gio" <gio@ig.dk.INVALID> wrote in message
news:btALf.52490$Cq2.8033@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
>
> "Pete" <escape2music@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:dtm7r2$rk5$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>>> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better...
>>> I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and
>>> highway driving (120-135kph).
>>
>> That's not bad. I was getting similar mileage with a 1.8T in mostly city
>> driving.
>
> Im averaging at 10,1L/100km in a ´98 A4 Avant 2.4 tt
> Just DONT look at the consumption *here and now*, when you´re playing
> big-foot ;o)
>
> --
> Gio
>
calculate L per 100Kms when I fill up.
I tend to look at the DTE when I drive.
"Gio" <gio@ig.dk.INVALID> wrote in message
news:btALf.52490$Cq2.8033@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
>
> "Pete" <escape2music@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:dtm7r2$rk5$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>>> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better...
>>> I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and
>>> highway driving (120-135kph).
>>
>> That's not bad. I was getting similar mileage with a 1.8T in mostly city
>> driving.
>
> Im averaging at 10,1L/100km in a ´98 A4 Avant 2.4 tt
> Just DONT look at the consumption *here and now*, when you´re playing
> big-foot ;o)
>
> --
> Gio
>
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
I don't look at the trip computer consumption (it scares me sometimes)... I
calculate L per 100Kms when I fill up.
I tend to look at the DTE when I drive.
"Gio" <gio@ig.dk.INVALID> wrote in message
news:btALf.52490$Cq2.8033@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
>
> "Pete" <escape2music@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:dtm7r2$rk5$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>>> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better...
>>> I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and
>>> highway driving (120-135kph).
>>
>> That's not bad. I was getting similar mileage with a 1.8T in mostly city
>> driving.
>
> Im averaging at 10,1L/100km in a ´98 A4 Avant 2.4 tt
> Just DONT look at the consumption *here and now*, when you´re playing
> big-foot ;o)
>
> --
> Gio
>
calculate L per 100Kms when I fill up.
I tend to look at the DTE when I drive.
"Gio" <gio@ig.dk.INVALID> wrote in message
news:btALf.52490$Cq2.8033@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
>
> "Pete" <escape2music@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:dtm7r2$rk5$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>>> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better...
>>> I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and
>>> highway driving (120-135kph).
>>
>> That's not bad. I was getting similar mileage with a 1.8T in mostly city
>> driving.
>
> Im averaging at 10,1L/100km in a ´98 A4 Avant 2.4 tt
> Just DONT look at the consumption *here and now*, when you´re playing
> big-foot ;o)
>
> --
> Gio
>
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
Oil leaks and/or consumption??? Really
I was told I need to watch the valve cover gaskets or something like that,
from the mechanic that sold me the car (he said he keeps an eye on things
like that for me/customers) he said it should not be drinking any oil tho.
"Pete" <escape2music@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dtm7r2$rk5$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
> "Rob Guenther" wrote
>>I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told me the
>>2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet, they only "need"
>>regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it wasn't required,
>
> I'm assuming you meant the 1.8T needs <synthetic oil>, which is true.
> Dealers used to put bulk dino oil in them at 10K mile intervals and that's
> what caused the sludging issues.
>
>
>> they also needed a larger oil filter, and these were not used for the
>> first few years... Leading to sluding issues on some cars. Turbo's can
>> fail, natural aspiration *can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.
>
> The 2.8 has some problems of its own like oil leaks or high oil
> consumption. But yeah, it's still probably a safer bet. The 1.8T was a
> tuner's paradise, hence why it was so popular. The 2.8 is not as easy to
> modify for higher power with little resources. Of course with
> modifications come higher risks of engine (and other component) problems.
>
>
>>
>> With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line,
>
> Yeah, even more so with quattro.
>
>
>> doesn't seem as annoying with a manual transmission tho.
>
> Yup, I was quite happy with mine, especially after chipping it.
>
>
>> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better...
>> I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and
>> highway driving (120-135kph).
>
> That's not bad. I was getting similar mileage with a 1.8T in mostly city
> driving.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
I was told I need to watch the valve cover gaskets or something like that,
from the mechanic that sold me the car (he said he keeps an eye on things
like that for me/customers) he said it should not be drinking any oil tho.
"Pete" <escape2music@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dtm7r2$rk5$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
> "Rob Guenther" wrote
>>I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told me the
>>2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet, they only "need"
>>regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it wasn't required,
>
> I'm assuming you meant the 1.8T needs <synthetic oil>, which is true.
> Dealers used to put bulk dino oil in them at 10K mile intervals and that's
> what caused the sludging issues.
>
>
>> they also needed a larger oil filter, and these were not used for the
>> first few years... Leading to sluding issues on some cars. Turbo's can
>> fail, natural aspiration *can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.
>
> The 2.8 has some problems of its own like oil leaks or high oil
> consumption. But yeah, it's still probably a safer bet. The 1.8T was a
> tuner's paradise, hence why it was so popular. The 2.8 is not as easy to
> modify for higher power with little resources. Of course with
> modifications come higher risks of engine (and other component) problems.
>
>
>>
>> With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line,
>
> Yeah, even more so with quattro.
>
>
>> doesn't seem as annoying with a manual transmission tho.
>
> Yup, I was quite happy with mine, especially after chipping it.
>
>
>> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better...
>> I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and
>> highway driving (120-135kph).
>
> That's not bad. I was getting similar mileage with a 1.8T in mostly city
> driving.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
Oil leaks and/or consumption??? Really
I was told I need to watch the valve cover gaskets or something like that,
from the mechanic that sold me the car (he said he keeps an eye on things
like that for me/customers) he said it should not be drinking any oil tho.
"Pete" <escape2music@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dtm7r2$rk5$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
> "Rob Guenther" wrote
>>I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told me the
>>2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet, they only "need"
>>regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it wasn't required,
>
> I'm assuming you meant the 1.8T needs <synthetic oil>, which is true.
> Dealers used to put bulk dino oil in them at 10K mile intervals and that's
> what caused the sludging issues.
>
>
>> they also needed a larger oil filter, and these were not used for the
>> first few years... Leading to sluding issues on some cars. Turbo's can
>> fail, natural aspiration *can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.
>
> The 2.8 has some problems of its own like oil leaks or high oil
> consumption. But yeah, it's still probably a safer bet. The 1.8T was a
> tuner's paradise, hence why it was so popular. The 2.8 is not as easy to
> modify for higher power with little resources. Of course with
> modifications come higher risks of engine (and other component) problems.
>
>
>>
>> With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line,
>
> Yeah, even more so with quattro.
>
>
>> doesn't seem as annoying with a manual transmission tho.
>
> Yup, I was quite happy with mine, especially after chipping it.
>
>
>> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better...
>> I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and
>> highway driving (120-135kph).
>
> That's not bad. I was getting similar mileage with a 1.8T in mostly city
> driving.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
I was told I need to watch the valve cover gaskets or something like that,
from the mechanic that sold me the car (he said he keeps an eye on things
like that for me/customers) he said it should not be drinking any oil tho.
"Pete" <escape2music@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dtm7r2$rk5$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
> "Rob Guenther" wrote
>>I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told me the
>>2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet, they only "need"
>>regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it wasn't required,
>
> I'm assuming you meant the 1.8T needs <synthetic oil>, which is true.
> Dealers used to put bulk dino oil in them at 10K mile intervals and that's
> what caused the sludging issues.
>
>
>> they also needed a larger oil filter, and these were not used for the
>> first few years... Leading to sluding issues on some cars. Turbo's can
>> fail, natural aspiration *can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.
>
> The 2.8 has some problems of its own like oil leaks or high oil
> consumption. But yeah, it's still probably a safer bet. The 1.8T was a
> tuner's paradise, hence why it was so popular. The 2.8 is not as easy to
> modify for higher power with little resources. Of course with
> modifications come higher risks of engine (and other component) problems.
>
>
>>
>> With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line,
>
> Yeah, even more so with quattro.
>
>
>> doesn't seem as annoying with a manual transmission tho.
>
> Yup, I was quite happy with mine, especially after chipping it.
>
>
>> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better...
>> I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and
>> highway driving (120-135kph).
>
> That's not bad. I was getting similar mileage with a 1.8T in mostly city
> driving.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
Oil leaks and/or consumption??? Really
I was told I need to watch the valve cover gaskets or something like that,
from the mechanic that sold me the car (he said he keeps an eye on things
like that for me/customers) he said it should not be drinking any oil tho.
"Pete" <escape2music@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dtm7r2$rk5$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
> "Rob Guenther" wrote
>>I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told me the
>>2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet, they only "need"
>>regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it wasn't required,
>
> I'm assuming you meant the 1.8T needs <synthetic oil>, which is true.
> Dealers used to put bulk dino oil in them at 10K mile intervals and that's
> what caused the sludging issues.
>
>
>> they also needed a larger oil filter, and these were not used for the
>> first few years... Leading to sluding issues on some cars. Turbo's can
>> fail, natural aspiration *can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.
>
> The 2.8 has some problems of its own like oil leaks or high oil
> consumption. But yeah, it's still probably a safer bet. The 1.8T was a
> tuner's paradise, hence why it was so popular. The 2.8 is not as easy to
> modify for higher power with little resources. Of course with
> modifications come higher risks of engine (and other component) problems.
>
>
>>
>> With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line,
>
> Yeah, even more so with quattro.
>
>
>> doesn't seem as annoying with a manual transmission tho.
>
> Yup, I was quite happy with mine, especially after chipping it.
>
>
>> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better...
>> I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and
>> highway driving (120-135kph).
>
> That's not bad. I was getting similar mileage with a 1.8T in mostly city
> driving.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
I was told I need to watch the valve cover gaskets or something like that,
from the mechanic that sold me the car (he said he keeps an eye on things
like that for me/customers) he said it should not be drinking any oil tho.
"Pete" <escape2music@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dtm7r2$rk5$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
> "Rob Guenther" wrote
>>I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told me the
>>2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet, they only "need"
>>regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it wasn't required,
>
> I'm assuming you meant the 1.8T needs <synthetic oil>, which is true.
> Dealers used to put bulk dino oil in them at 10K mile intervals and that's
> what caused the sludging issues.
>
>
>> they also needed a larger oil filter, and these were not used for the
>> first few years... Leading to sluding issues on some cars. Turbo's can
>> fail, natural aspiration *can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.
>
> The 2.8 has some problems of its own like oil leaks or high oil
> consumption. But yeah, it's still probably a safer bet. The 1.8T was a
> tuner's paradise, hence why it was so popular. The 2.8 is not as easy to
> modify for higher power with little resources. Of course with
> modifications come higher risks of engine (and other component) problems.
>
>
>>
>> With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line,
>
> Yeah, even more so with quattro.
>
>
>> doesn't seem as annoying with a manual transmission tho.
>
> Yup, I was quite happy with mine, especially after chipping it.
>
>
>> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better...
>> I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and
>> highway driving (120-135kph).
>
> That's not bad. I was getting similar mileage with a 1.8T in mostly city
> driving.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
I use synthetic, just not a huge issue if you're looking used... you can
switch it over yourself on a lower Kms car and not worry... Mine was
switched over at 80K Kms and I bought it with 82K Kms on the clock.
"Juan King" <you.ARE.the.weakest.link@good.bye> wrote in message
news:dtmmfq$n2m$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> "Rob Guenther" <rguenther@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:3iuLf.54$8d1.10@read1.cgocable.net...
>>I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told me the
>>2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet, they only "need"
>>regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it wasn't required, they also
>>needed a larger oil filter, and these were not used for the first few
>>years... Leading to sluding issues on some cars. Turbo's can fail, natural
>>aspiration *can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.
>
> Even though the 3.0 V6 only 'needs' regular dino/mineral oil, i'd still be
> inclined to use synthetic, as you get much better engine protection at
> start-up, particularly cold starts. The lower viscosity of synthetics
> will also help with slightly better fuel consumption. Don't forget, the
> V6 motor is harder to work on (and more expensive) should any work be
> required due to any lubrication failure.
>
>> With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line, doesn't seem as
>> annoying with a manual transmission tho.
>
> Agreed - before I got my S4 V8, I considered the A4 3.0V6 q, as well as
> the 1.8T 2wd and 4wd, and tried both the V6 and 1.8T with manual and auto
> transmissions. I was mighty disappointed in general with the Audi auto
> box, but I thought it was particularly poor with the 1.8T - the auto box
> was better with the V6, but still not on a par with the auto box in a BMW
> 330i. Had the S4 not have been released, I would have settled for the 3.0
> V6 manual (this was around Xmas 2002 when I was looking!).
>
> The OP didn't indicate what he drives ATM, but if he is used to the
> low-down torque of lazy V8s with slush boxes - then he'll probably be
> disappointed/frustrated with the lack of immediate low-down torque from
> the 1.8T - it was a real deal-breaker for me!
>
>> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better...
>> I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and
>> highway driving (120-135kph).
>
> Yup - horses for courses and all that. Larger engine displacement usually
> means worse fuel economy, though there are exceptions. Though it is known
> that Audi vee motors (V6 and V do improve their fuel ecomomy after they
> are truly run-in (anywhere from 5k to 10k miles)
>
>> A 1.8T car will handle better due to less weight at the front of the car.
>
> I don't really know if I agree with the 'handle better' bit. The 1.8T may
> be 'slightly' better/easier to throw around the twisties, but hustling the
> (only slightly) heavier lump of the V6 can be more rewarding - it just
> takes a slightly different driving style. Even my S4 V8 (with 195kg of
> motor ahead of the front axle) can be great fun, and extremely rewarding
> to drive hard round the back roads - you just have to remember to scrub
> off your speed BEFORE you turn in, and power through the corners, rather
> than cruising round them on a trailing throttle. I must be doing it OK
> because my rear tyres are wearing at the very same rate as the fronts (to
> within ½mm), without any tyre/wheel swapping at all.
>
> Don't forget though, all variants of the B6 A4 are generally very good and
> competent in the handling department, due to the fully independent
> suspension on all four corners - variable geometry double wishbone up
> front and multi-link at the rear.
>
> Rgds, Sean
>
>> I'm glad I picked the V6 version tho, seems better suited to my driving
>> tastes (lots of cruising on the highway, occasional spirited drives down
>> the back roads).
>> <sheehan888@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1140720338.000996.255570@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>>> Hi everyone im currently looking at purchasing a 2004 A4...my only
>>> hesitation is in choosing the engine. Ive heard some horror stories
>>> about engine problems that audi has had in the past and i was wondering
>>> wich engine is less prone to problems. I like most other people would
>>> like to avoid catastrophic engine failure and the resulting $$$
>>> outflow.
>>>
>>> I love the idea of having the inline 6 but i noticed it was only
>>> available for 3 modle years ( i think) whereas the 1.8 has been in
>>> service much longer. Is it because there were problems with the 3.0?
>>>
>>> Any input form anyone would help....thanks alot
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
switch it over yourself on a lower Kms car and not worry... Mine was
switched over at 80K Kms and I bought it with 82K Kms on the clock.
"Juan King" <you.ARE.the.weakest.link@good.bye> wrote in message
news:dtmmfq$n2m$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> "Rob Guenther" <rguenther@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:3iuLf.54$8d1.10@read1.cgocable.net...
>>I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told me the
>>2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet, they only "need"
>>regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it wasn't required, they also
>>needed a larger oil filter, and these were not used for the first few
>>years... Leading to sluding issues on some cars. Turbo's can fail, natural
>>aspiration *can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.
>
> Even though the 3.0 V6 only 'needs' regular dino/mineral oil, i'd still be
> inclined to use synthetic, as you get much better engine protection at
> start-up, particularly cold starts. The lower viscosity of synthetics
> will also help with slightly better fuel consumption. Don't forget, the
> V6 motor is harder to work on (and more expensive) should any work be
> required due to any lubrication failure.
>
>> With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line, doesn't seem as
>> annoying with a manual transmission tho.
>
> Agreed - before I got my S4 V8, I considered the A4 3.0V6 q, as well as
> the 1.8T 2wd and 4wd, and tried both the V6 and 1.8T with manual and auto
> transmissions. I was mighty disappointed in general with the Audi auto
> box, but I thought it was particularly poor with the 1.8T - the auto box
> was better with the V6, but still not on a par with the auto box in a BMW
> 330i. Had the S4 not have been released, I would have settled for the 3.0
> V6 manual (this was around Xmas 2002 when I was looking!).
>
> The OP didn't indicate what he drives ATM, but if he is used to the
> low-down torque of lazy V8s with slush boxes - then he'll probably be
> disappointed/frustrated with the lack of immediate low-down torque from
> the 1.8T - it was a real deal-breaker for me!
>
>> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better...
>> I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and
>> highway driving (120-135kph).
>
> Yup - horses for courses and all that. Larger engine displacement usually
> means worse fuel economy, though there are exceptions. Though it is known
> that Audi vee motors (V6 and V do improve their fuel ecomomy after they
> are truly run-in (anywhere from 5k to 10k miles)
>
>> A 1.8T car will handle better due to less weight at the front of the car.
>
> I don't really know if I agree with the 'handle better' bit. The 1.8T may
> be 'slightly' better/easier to throw around the twisties, but hustling the
> (only slightly) heavier lump of the V6 can be more rewarding - it just
> takes a slightly different driving style. Even my S4 V8 (with 195kg of
> motor ahead of the front axle) can be great fun, and extremely rewarding
> to drive hard round the back roads - you just have to remember to scrub
> off your speed BEFORE you turn in, and power through the corners, rather
> than cruising round them on a trailing throttle. I must be doing it OK
> because my rear tyres are wearing at the very same rate as the fronts (to
> within ½mm), without any tyre/wheel swapping at all.
>
> Don't forget though, all variants of the B6 A4 are generally very good and
> competent in the handling department, due to the fully independent
> suspension on all four corners - variable geometry double wishbone up
> front and multi-link at the rear.
>
> Rgds, Sean
>
>> I'm glad I picked the V6 version tho, seems better suited to my driving
>> tastes (lots of cruising on the highway, occasional spirited drives down
>> the back roads).
>> <sheehan888@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1140720338.000996.255570@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>>> Hi everyone im currently looking at purchasing a 2004 A4...my only
>>> hesitation is in choosing the engine. Ive heard some horror stories
>>> about engine problems that audi has had in the past and i was wondering
>>> wich engine is less prone to problems. I like most other people would
>>> like to avoid catastrophic engine failure and the resulting $$$
>>> outflow.
>>>
>>> I love the idea of having the inline 6 but i noticed it was only
>>> available for 3 modle years ( i think) whereas the 1.8 has been in
>>> service much longer. Is it because there were problems with the 3.0?
>>>
>>> Any input form anyone would help....thanks alot
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
I use synthetic, just not a huge issue if you're looking used... you can
switch it over yourself on a lower Kms car and not worry... Mine was
switched over at 80K Kms and I bought it with 82K Kms on the clock.
"Juan King" <you.ARE.the.weakest.link@good.bye> wrote in message
news:dtmmfq$n2m$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> "Rob Guenther" <rguenther@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:3iuLf.54$8d1.10@read1.cgocable.net...
>>I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told me the
>>2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet, they only "need"
>>regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it wasn't required, they also
>>needed a larger oil filter, and these were not used for the first few
>>years... Leading to sluding issues on some cars. Turbo's can fail, natural
>>aspiration *can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.
>
> Even though the 3.0 V6 only 'needs' regular dino/mineral oil, i'd still be
> inclined to use synthetic, as you get much better engine protection at
> start-up, particularly cold starts. The lower viscosity of synthetics
> will also help with slightly better fuel consumption. Don't forget, the
> V6 motor is harder to work on (and more expensive) should any work be
> required due to any lubrication failure.
>
>> With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line, doesn't seem as
>> annoying with a manual transmission tho.
>
> Agreed - before I got my S4 V8, I considered the A4 3.0V6 q, as well as
> the 1.8T 2wd and 4wd, and tried both the V6 and 1.8T with manual and auto
> transmissions. I was mighty disappointed in general with the Audi auto
> box, but I thought it was particularly poor with the 1.8T - the auto box
> was better with the V6, but still not on a par with the auto box in a BMW
> 330i. Had the S4 not have been released, I would have settled for the 3.0
> V6 manual (this was around Xmas 2002 when I was looking!).
>
> The OP didn't indicate what he drives ATM, but if he is used to the
> low-down torque of lazy V8s with slush boxes - then he'll probably be
> disappointed/frustrated with the lack of immediate low-down torque from
> the 1.8T - it was a real deal-breaker for me!
>
>> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better...
>> I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and
>> highway driving (120-135kph).
>
> Yup - horses for courses and all that. Larger engine displacement usually
> means worse fuel economy, though there are exceptions. Though it is known
> that Audi vee motors (V6 and V do improve their fuel ecomomy after they
> are truly run-in (anywhere from 5k to 10k miles)
>
>> A 1.8T car will handle better due to less weight at the front of the car.
>
> I don't really know if I agree with the 'handle better' bit. The 1.8T may
> be 'slightly' better/easier to throw around the twisties, but hustling the
> (only slightly) heavier lump of the V6 can be more rewarding - it just
> takes a slightly different driving style. Even my S4 V8 (with 195kg of
> motor ahead of the front axle) can be great fun, and extremely rewarding
> to drive hard round the back roads - you just have to remember to scrub
> off your speed BEFORE you turn in, and power through the corners, rather
> than cruising round them on a trailing throttle. I must be doing it OK
> because my rear tyres are wearing at the very same rate as the fronts (to
> within ½mm), without any tyre/wheel swapping at all.
>
> Don't forget though, all variants of the B6 A4 are generally very good and
> competent in the handling department, due to the fully independent
> suspension on all four corners - variable geometry double wishbone up
> front and multi-link at the rear.
>
> Rgds, Sean
>
>> I'm glad I picked the V6 version tho, seems better suited to my driving
>> tastes (lots of cruising on the highway, occasional spirited drives down
>> the back roads).
>> <sheehan888@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1140720338.000996.255570@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>>> Hi everyone im currently looking at purchasing a 2004 A4...my only
>>> hesitation is in choosing the engine. Ive heard some horror stories
>>> about engine problems that audi has had in the past and i was wondering
>>> wich engine is less prone to problems. I like most other people would
>>> like to avoid catastrophic engine failure and the resulting $$$
>>> outflow.
>>>
>>> I love the idea of having the inline 6 but i noticed it was only
>>> available for 3 modle years ( i think) whereas the 1.8 has been in
>>> service much longer. Is it because there were problems with the 3.0?
>>>
>>> Any input form anyone would help....thanks alot
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
switch it over yourself on a lower Kms car and not worry... Mine was
switched over at 80K Kms and I bought it with 82K Kms on the clock.
"Juan King" <you.ARE.the.weakest.link@good.bye> wrote in message
news:dtmmfq$n2m$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> "Rob Guenther" <rguenther@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:3iuLf.54$8d1.10@read1.cgocable.net...
>>I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told me the
>>2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet, they only "need"
>>regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it wasn't required, they also
>>needed a larger oil filter, and these were not used for the first few
>>years... Leading to sluding issues on some cars. Turbo's can fail, natural
>>aspiration *can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.
>
> Even though the 3.0 V6 only 'needs' regular dino/mineral oil, i'd still be
> inclined to use synthetic, as you get much better engine protection at
> start-up, particularly cold starts. The lower viscosity of synthetics
> will also help with slightly better fuel consumption. Don't forget, the
> V6 motor is harder to work on (and more expensive) should any work be
> required due to any lubrication failure.
>
>> With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line, doesn't seem as
>> annoying with a manual transmission tho.
>
> Agreed - before I got my S4 V8, I considered the A4 3.0V6 q, as well as
> the 1.8T 2wd and 4wd, and tried both the V6 and 1.8T with manual and auto
> transmissions. I was mighty disappointed in general with the Audi auto
> box, but I thought it was particularly poor with the 1.8T - the auto box
> was better with the V6, but still not on a par with the auto box in a BMW
> 330i. Had the S4 not have been released, I would have settled for the 3.0
> V6 manual (this was around Xmas 2002 when I was looking!).
>
> The OP didn't indicate what he drives ATM, but if he is used to the
> low-down torque of lazy V8s with slush boxes - then he'll probably be
> disappointed/frustrated with the lack of immediate low-down torque from
> the 1.8T - it was a real deal-breaker for me!
>
>> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better...
>> I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and
>> highway driving (120-135kph).
>
> Yup - horses for courses and all that. Larger engine displacement usually
> means worse fuel economy, though there are exceptions. Though it is known
> that Audi vee motors (V6 and V do improve their fuel ecomomy after they
> are truly run-in (anywhere from 5k to 10k miles)
>
>> A 1.8T car will handle better due to less weight at the front of the car.
>
> I don't really know if I agree with the 'handle better' bit. The 1.8T may
> be 'slightly' better/easier to throw around the twisties, but hustling the
> (only slightly) heavier lump of the V6 can be more rewarding - it just
> takes a slightly different driving style. Even my S4 V8 (with 195kg of
> motor ahead of the front axle) can be great fun, and extremely rewarding
> to drive hard round the back roads - you just have to remember to scrub
> off your speed BEFORE you turn in, and power through the corners, rather
> than cruising round them on a trailing throttle. I must be doing it OK
> because my rear tyres are wearing at the very same rate as the fronts (to
> within ½mm), without any tyre/wheel swapping at all.
>
> Don't forget though, all variants of the B6 A4 are generally very good and
> competent in the handling department, due to the fully independent
> suspension on all four corners - variable geometry double wishbone up
> front and multi-link at the rear.
>
> Rgds, Sean
>
>> I'm glad I picked the V6 version tho, seems better suited to my driving
>> tastes (lots of cruising on the highway, occasional spirited drives down
>> the back roads).
>> <sheehan888@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1140720338.000996.255570@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>>> Hi everyone im currently looking at purchasing a 2004 A4...my only
>>> hesitation is in choosing the engine. Ive heard some horror stories
>>> about engine problems that audi has had in the past and i was wondering
>>> wich engine is less prone to problems. I like most other people would
>>> like to avoid catastrophic engine failure and the resulting $$$
>>> outflow.
>>>
>>> I love the idea of having the inline 6 but i noticed it was only
>>> available for 3 modle years ( i think) whereas the 1.8 has been in
>>> service much longer. Is it because there were problems with the 3.0?
>>>
>>> Any input form anyone would help....thanks alot
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
I use synthetic, just not a huge issue if you're looking used... you can
switch it over yourself on a lower Kms car and not worry... Mine was
switched over at 80K Kms and I bought it with 82K Kms on the clock.
"Juan King" <you.ARE.the.weakest.link@good.bye> wrote in message
news:dtmmfq$n2m$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> "Rob Guenther" <rguenther@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:3iuLf.54$8d1.10@read1.cgocable.net...
>>I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told me the
>>2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet, they only "need"
>>regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it wasn't required, they also
>>needed a larger oil filter, and these were not used for the first few
>>years... Leading to sluding issues on some cars. Turbo's can fail, natural
>>aspiration *can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.
>
> Even though the 3.0 V6 only 'needs' regular dino/mineral oil, i'd still be
> inclined to use synthetic, as you get much better engine protection at
> start-up, particularly cold starts. The lower viscosity of synthetics
> will also help with slightly better fuel consumption. Don't forget, the
> V6 motor is harder to work on (and more expensive) should any work be
> required due to any lubrication failure.
>
>> With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line, doesn't seem as
>> annoying with a manual transmission tho.
>
> Agreed - before I got my S4 V8, I considered the A4 3.0V6 q, as well as
> the 1.8T 2wd and 4wd, and tried both the V6 and 1.8T with manual and auto
> transmissions. I was mighty disappointed in general with the Audi auto
> box, but I thought it was particularly poor with the 1.8T - the auto box
> was better with the V6, but still not on a par with the auto box in a BMW
> 330i. Had the S4 not have been released, I would have settled for the 3.0
> V6 manual (this was around Xmas 2002 when I was looking!).
>
> The OP didn't indicate what he drives ATM, but if he is used to the
> low-down torque of lazy V8s with slush boxes - then he'll probably be
> disappointed/frustrated with the lack of immediate low-down torque from
> the 1.8T - it was a real deal-breaker for me!
>
>> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better...
>> I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and
>> highway driving (120-135kph).
>
> Yup - horses for courses and all that. Larger engine displacement usually
> means worse fuel economy, though there are exceptions. Though it is known
> that Audi vee motors (V6 and V do improve their fuel ecomomy after they
> are truly run-in (anywhere from 5k to 10k miles)
>
>> A 1.8T car will handle better due to less weight at the front of the car.
>
> I don't really know if I agree with the 'handle better' bit. The 1.8T may
> be 'slightly' better/easier to throw around the twisties, but hustling the
> (only slightly) heavier lump of the V6 can be more rewarding - it just
> takes a slightly different driving style. Even my S4 V8 (with 195kg of
> motor ahead of the front axle) can be great fun, and extremely rewarding
> to drive hard round the back roads - you just have to remember to scrub
> off your speed BEFORE you turn in, and power through the corners, rather
> than cruising round them on a trailing throttle. I must be doing it OK
> because my rear tyres are wearing at the very same rate as the fronts (to
> within ½mm), without any tyre/wheel swapping at all.
>
> Don't forget though, all variants of the B6 A4 are generally very good and
> competent in the handling department, due to the fully independent
> suspension on all four corners - variable geometry double wishbone up
> front and multi-link at the rear.
>
> Rgds, Sean
>
>> I'm glad I picked the V6 version tho, seems better suited to my driving
>> tastes (lots of cruising on the highway, occasional spirited drives down
>> the back roads).
>> <sheehan888@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1140720338.000996.255570@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>>> Hi everyone im currently looking at purchasing a 2004 A4...my only
>>> hesitation is in choosing the engine. Ive heard some horror stories
>>> about engine problems that audi has had in the past and i was wondering
>>> wich engine is less prone to problems. I like most other people would
>>> like to avoid catastrophic engine failure and the resulting $$$
>>> outflow.
>>>
>>> I love the idea of having the inline 6 but i noticed it was only
>>> available for 3 modle years ( i think) whereas the 1.8 has been in
>>> service much longer. Is it because there were problems with the 3.0?
>>>
>>> Any input form anyone would help....thanks alot
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
switch it over yourself on a lower Kms car and not worry... Mine was
switched over at 80K Kms and I bought it with 82K Kms on the clock.
"Juan King" <you.ARE.the.weakest.link@good.bye> wrote in message
news:dtmmfq$n2m$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> "Rob Guenther" <rguenther@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:3iuLf.54$8d1.10@read1.cgocable.net...
>>I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told me the
>>2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet, they only "need"
>>regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it wasn't required, they also
>>needed a larger oil filter, and these were not used for the first few
>>years... Leading to sluding issues on some cars. Turbo's can fail, natural
>>aspiration *can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.
>
> Even though the 3.0 V6 only 'needs' regular dino/mineral oil, i'd still be
> inclined to use synthetic, as you get much better engine protection at
> start-up, particularly cold starts. The lower viscosity of synthetics
> will also help with slightly better fuel consumption. Don't forget, the
> V6 motor is harder to work on (and more expensive) should any work be
> required due to any lubrication failure.
>
>> With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line, doesn't seem as
>> annoying with a manual transmission tho.
>
> Agreed - before I got my S4 V8, I considered the A4 3.0V6 q, as well as
> the 1.8T 2wd and 4wd, and tried both the V6 and 1.8T with manual and auto
> transmissions. I was mighty disappointed in general with the Audi auto
> box, but I thought it was particularly poor with the 1.8T - the auto box
> was better with the V6, but still not on a par with the auto box in a BMW
> 330i. Had the S4 not have been released, I would have settled for the 3.0
> V6 manual (this was around Xmas 2002 when I was looking!).
>
> The OP didn't indicate what he drives ATM, but if he is used to the
> low-down torque of lazy V8s with slush boxes - then he'll probably be
> disappointed/frustrated with the lack of immediate low-down torque from
> the 1.8T - it was a real deal-breaker for me!
>
>> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better...
>> I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and
>> highway driving (120-135kph).
>
> Yup - horses for courses and all that. Larger engine displacement usually
> means worse fuel economy, though there are exceptions. Though it is known
> that Audi vee motors (V6 and V do improve their fuel ecomomy after they
> are truly run-in (anywhere from 5k to 10k miles)
>
>> A 1.8T car will handle better due to less weight at the front of the car.
>
> I don't really know if I agree with the 'handle better' bit. The 1.8T may
> be 'slightly' better/easier to throw around the twisties, but hustling the
> (only slightly) heavier lump of the V6 can be more rewarding - it just
> takes a slightly different driving style. Even my S4 V8 (with 195kg of
> motor ahead of the front axle) can be great fun, and extremely rewarding
> to drive hard round the back roads - you just have to remember to scrub
> off your speed BEFORE you turn in, and power through the corners, rather
> than cruising round them on a trailing throttle. I must be doing it OK
> because my rear tyres are wearing at the very same rate as the fronts (to
> within ½mm), without any tyre/wheel swapping at all.
>
> Don't forget though, all variants of the B6 A4 are generally very good and
> competent in the handling department, due to the fully independent
> suspension on all four corners - variable geometry double wishbone up
> front and multi-link at the rear.
>
> Rgds, Sean
>
>> I'm glad I picked the V6 version tho, seems better suited to my driving
>> tastes (lots of cruising on the highway, occasional spirited drives down
>> the back roads).
>> <sheehan888@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1140720338.000996.255570@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>>> Hi everyone im currently looking at purchasing a 2004 A4...my only
>>> hesitation is in choosing the engine. Ive heard some horror stories
>>> about engine problems that audi has had in the past and i was wondering
>>> wich engine is less prone to problems. I like most other people would
>>> like to avoid catastrophic engine failure and the resulting $$$
>>> outflow.
>>>
>>> I love the idea of having the inline 6 but i noticed it was only
>>> available for 3 modle years ( i think) whereas the 1.8 has been in
>>> service much longer. Is it because there were problems with the 3.0?
>>>
>>> Any input form anyone would help....thanks alot
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)